Primed against Primacy: The Restraint Constituency and U.S. Foreign Policy

In 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show:
“If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the
indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”
Albright’s view was anything but unique to her or to the Clinton
administration. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a strong
bipartisan consensus in favor of frequent American military intervention
has reigned in Washington. Even President Obama, who came into office calling for greater restraint than
his predecessor, expanded the “war on terror,” engaged in regime change
in Libya, and extended the mission in Afghanistan — America’s longest
war. Facing vocal critics who seek to increase American intervention not
just in the Middle East but also in conflicts throughout the world,
Obama was unable to implement many of the more restrained policies he
advocated.

The
American public, however, is far less supportive of an interventionist
foreign policy agenda than political elites. Given this, a critical task
for the next president will be to navigate between the interventionist
tendencies of the right and the left, while embracing the “restraint
constituency.” An analysis of polling data from both CNN/ORC and the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs reveals that this constituency, which
cuts across party lines and represents roughly 37 percent of the public —
exhibits a reliable disposition toward foreign policy restraint,
opposing the use of military force in all but a few cases. That
contrasts with an “interventionist constituency” that represents about a
quarter of the public and supports much more aggressive efforts to
promote American interests abroad. Since neither constituency’s core
followers represent a majority, the deciding voice between intervention
and restraint in foreign policy debates belongs to the 40 percent of the
public that falls somewhere between the two camps.
Though the restraint constituency enjoys an advantage on many
important foreign policy issues, public fears about terrorism and other
global conflicts will continue to be a significant challenge for
restraint-minded policymakers. Framing world events as “other people’s
business,” reminding the public of the costs of major war, and pursuing
an active noninterventionist counterterrorism strategy can help
policymakers encourage public support for a more restrained foreign
policy.